Which of these articles with the word republican in them do you consider to be saying something hateful?
NPR Search : NPR
www.npr.org
New York Hospital to Pause Delivering Babies After Unvaccinated Workers Resign En Masse
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Recommended Videos
www.npr.org
Remember, he said hateful or judgmental. That latter part really includes anything that doesn't present Republicans and/or conservatives in an entirely positive light.Which of these articles with the word republican in them do you consider to be saying something hateful?
NPR Search : NPR
Are we really going to play the game of who throws around insults more? One side has Tucker fucking Carlson, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones and Steve Bannon. Jesus fucking christ conservatives have made it their MO to throw around insults and then accuse people of being too sensitive. Tstorm, you're such a perpetual fucking victim. Christ.
We'll start with the first one!Which of these articles with the word republican in them do you consider to be saying something hateful?
NPR Search : NPR
Oklahoma Welcomes Hundreds Of Afghan Refugees — Despite The State GOP's Objections
So the headline wants you to think that Republicans in Oklahoma are pushing against Afghan refugees. Then the entire story is actually about Republicans welcoming Afghan refugees to Tulsa. The title is based on one guy in the state GOP making facebook videos. The governor welcomes them, the mayor welcomes them, the Christian charity groups are getting them homes and furnishing them (and Catholic Charities in Oklahoma is not going to be much other than Republicans, it doesn't need to be stated). So why that headline? Because their audience leans left, and hate gets clicks. They took a feel good piece about a community welcoming refugees, found the one basically irrelevant guy to direct your hatred at, and slapped it into the headline.
I know that's a subtle thing to complain about, but imagine that in every single piece in perpetuity. It's like a judgmental mother constantly harping on her children, "Are you a Democrat yet? Are you a Democrat yet?" And all of you are wondering why the children don't visit home very often.
All of those people are imitations of the left-leaning media. That's the purpose of Fox news, to be the mirror image of CNN. The motto "Fair and Balanced" wasn't meant to say their coverage was fair, but rather them doing the same thing for Republicans as CNN did for the Democrats was fair. It's "turnabout is fair play". And you know how much Fox News I consume? Almost exactly zero. I genuinely listen to NPR frequently, and sometimes conservative talk radio, though less so since they stopped playing the guy I liked and replaced him with Dan Bongino who kinda sucks.
I'm not worried about me, I do fine. I'm trying to defend regular people here. The bulk of mainstream media is sitting there with a cattle prod and constantly going "Don't you hate Republicans? You must really hate Republicans by now. You should hate Republicans more." And not only do you all not even notice it, you carry water for them, and hate regular people you've never met based off lies you were fed. You're all on about how it's the person's fault for believing some huckster they heard online, but you're all equally guilty as those people of believing the lies being fed to you.
No, you are wrong. What the article is about is Oklahomans as a whole welcoming Afghans, but that the Republicans amongst them do not see eye-to-eye with their party.
The State's Republican Party - as indicated by the comments of the Party Chair, stating he represents the views of the Party, opposes settling the refugees. A Republican mayor interviewed there states that the Party is not aligned with most of its voters on the issue as far as he is concerned. So the headline, accurately according to the content, states that the Party ("State GOP") is opposed to the refugees. Because according to its own chair and other GOP officials in the article, it is. And of course it is Oklahoma as a whole welcoming the refugees, because you can't discount the fact that about a third of Oklahomans vote Democrat.
So this is really just your cognitive bias - you are so convinced the media is unfair that you are manufacturing media bias when it is not there.
I mean, I can read an article and understand the facts presented at least. No other GOP officials in the article say anything against the refugees. You are just wrong about that. Not a single person in public office is cited as opposing this. You want to talk about my cognitive bias? You're so mistaken in your perception that you've inserted information into an article that isn't there.
There is one guy posting videos on Facebook and claiming we shouldn't take on refugees from Afghanistan, and an entire Republican political machine going the opposite direction from him. The video NPR linked to as evidence of what he was saying is a month old. Seemingly the only people drawing this connection on the entire internet are NPR and NPR affiliates. Who go so far as to claim in a headline that the Oklahoma Republican Party opposed Afghan refugees because at the beginning of this month the chair made a facebook video saying we can't have vetted all of them. I don't know if even he still holds that opinion, a month is a lot of time to vet people. Barely anyone at all knew he even had that opinion, because despite a direct link from a national news organization to the video, it has barely 1000 views.
You're gonna try and argue technicalities still, I'm sure. But they dug up the single voice they could find in opposition to make this into a controversy. I googled more about the issue, and roughly a week ago there were a bunch of feel good articles about all the people working together to welcome those fleeing Afghanistan, with no mention of anyone opposing it. Then NPR dug up a video from the very beginning of this month that almost nobody had watched, and treated it as a current and official statement of the OK Republican Party so as to create a controversy that doesn't actually exist. Do you not see what I'm talking about yet? This was not a partisan issue. This was not a controversy. This was a community coming together to help people, and they manufactured a partisan conflict. So that you will hate Republicans as much as they do.
Edit: Seriously, though. Stop trying to fight me for a second and try to understand. Imagine being a person in Oklahoma. Imagine being a Republican, volunteering your time, talent, and treasure to the cause of welcoming refugees who had themselves helped Americans in Afghanistan. Imagine working together with all sorts of people to help others. And now imagine you turn on the radio, and NPR claims that the political party you belong to is objecting to your efforts. You personally know that you and many Republicans like you are the ones there to help, including the mayor and the governor, but despite that, the news characterizes your party as the opposition to your own charitable efforts, because they found "that guy" in a month old facebook post. Could you ever take NPR seriously ever again?
Last edited:
GOP grasps in vain for unity on Afghan refugee message
Republicans trying for nuance risk being overshadowed by colleagues whose approach to the issue carries echoes of xenophobia.
www.politico.com
Reporting on publicly stated positions by public figures is not 'hateful', stop acting hysterical.
Last edited:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
So, part and parcel of having a busy couple of days and thinking about our exchange (not to mention how everyone wanted to come in with their own thoughts), I wanted to make sure I gave this a lot of thought.
If anything, I want to be genuine with what I say now. More than most people on this forum, you reach from your own beliefs and try to engage. Try to expand. If there's one thing you do, Hold On To That. We need a hell of a lot more of that in the days to come. I thanked you for it before, and I will continue to thank you for that. We all need it.
If I'm able to ask anything more, I'm going to ask you to remove yourself from your experiences. You're a blank intelligence. And I want you to compilate what's actually being done here.
This isn't one event. This isn't even the third event. This is one in countless since 2020 all stemming from the decisions of the former president.
Trump: 'I didn't lie' to Americans about coronavirus risks
Trump told veteran journalist Bob Woodward earlier this year that he'd been intentionally downplaying the severity of the virus.
Trump knew how deadly it was, even knew that you could just breathe it and get it, but then did everything possible to say you don't need masks to "show confidence".
Trump officials interfered with CDC reports on Covid-19
The politically appointed HHS spokesperson and his team demanded and received the right to review CDC’s scientific reports to health professionals.
www.politico.com
He installed his own figurehead to make sure the information coming out from the CDC was more in line with the President's agenda.
And I think the most important is how some people on the right have been linking Dr. Fauci to the left agenda...
Trump’s claims about Fauci, fact-checked
President Donald Trump says that Americans are tired of COVID-19, the contagious disease that has killed more than 220,0
www.politifact.com
He is literally the person you want in this situation because he's non politcal. He isn't even registered with a party.
But people will believe it anyway. Because his message is against what they want to believe, and that's all that matters. They'll bring up his switch on masks, and that's something I'll always call him out for. Just like how I will always call Obama out for Sopa. But sure. Let's go with that. He flipped, so he can't be trusted. Let's brand that on him.
But if we do it for one, we do it for others.
We had an assault on our captiol due to these claims. This nation hasn't been this divided since the Civil War. And countless millions are being fueled by this increasing break of reality because things aren't going their way. They devolve more and more into madness until we get... well...
And oh yeah, January 6th.
But here's the most galling thing I want present to this floating, non-aligned intelligence that you now are.
All this talk about personal liberties. How it's your body and supposed to be your choice. It's a great soundbite... but it sounds familiar.
Oh yeah, women have been saying it for years.
It is astounding to us who haven't had the same freedoms and/or social importance as the average republican on how little it has taken you to want to take up arms. You don't have a ruling government doing everything possible to erode or limit your voting power. You don't have people eliminating programs to help you just be who you are regardless of your sexuality. Or how the Immigrant Melting Pot should be closed because the Right thinks it's time reign it in
https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...rams-georgia-93f7d957172f59968571e7d45874a814
How “America First” ruined the “American dream”
Author Sarah Churchwell on the entangled history of America’s most loaded phrases.
Now, with all of this, I want you to imagine there are more intelligences that are appearing around you. Unlike you, they have to deal with this stuff. Discrimination due to how they are born, a measured attack on their constiutional right to vote or live, and any number of actions that are set upon groups that the Right has, for some reason, deemed it moral to exclude. These intelligences have to deal with this. You? You need to wear a mask as a preventive measure.
Using just the facts at hand, My task to you is to explain how it was ok for the Right to limit and outright strip the liberties of these other groups, but how they should be concerned about your stance of how Covid prevention is really harmful to your individual liberty. And you must convince them that their liberty removal is just and that you are really the one aggrieved.
If you can do that, what you should do will become moot. If you can't... then there might be a need to reflect on your principles.
Dude, the State Republican Party Chair says the party is opposed to the refugees. I don't know the precise constitutional composition of the Oklahoma Republican Party, but the chair is almost certainly a very high ranking state party member who has the authority to speak the party line. He might of course have gone rogue, but in that case he probably needs to be replaced. However, the comments from the Republican mayor in that piece appear to be in accordance with the chair's statements, when he also expresses a belief that the party line is against the refugees.
I think you have a problem here misunderstanding the difference between a party and individual people in it. As an analogy, one might point out that the Catholic church is against contraception, but a lot of individual Catholics are not. However, it doesn't matter if individual Catholic laiety, priests or even bishops and cardinals accept contraception, the official line of the church is abundantly clear that contraception is verboten. Another analogy might be a news media organisation, where there is an official editorial policy, but opinion writers are allowed to operate in variance from that, or that the media's readers may broadly oppose the organisation's editorial stance.
The Party Chairman, for heaven's sakes! Do you think when the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party says something, it's just "one guy"? (Just in case you're not clear who that is, it's Xi Jinping.)
The Party Chairman, for heaven's sakes!
And to read around Oklahoma sources as I quickly did would suggest that although lots of high-ranking Republican officials are in favour of refugees, there clearly is at minimum a very significant (mostly Trump base aligned) groundswell of opposition to refugees, too.
Yes, that's a lovely imagined scenario. Meanwhile, in the real world...
One might point out the Republican Party regularly takes 45% of the vote and they are pretty much the same people election after election, so party loyalists, yet only ~20-25% of the population is registered Republican. Still fewer play any meaningful part in party operations, beyond mere registration. About 300,000 people voted in the Oklahoma Republican presidential primary for 2020, (about 8% of the state population), contrasting with over 1 million who voted Trump in the full election.
You see, very few people are fully engaged and/or in lockstep with their affiliated organisation, and have some starry-eyed notion that the organisation is a beacon of all that is right in the world. Most understand perfectly well that the organisational machinery can be full of scumbags, weirdos, a- / immorality and naked ambition; that people disagree with each other within the organisation; that the organisation comes out with policies and positions they disagree with. People vote for candidates they neither like nor respect, because they just do, with a sigh and a grumble that at least they're better than the other guy, or whatever. These good-hearted, charitable Republicans, if they pay any attention to politics and the people around them, are also likely to be aware that a substantial number of their Republican comrades are indeed opposed to the refugees. So how surprised are they really likely to be to see a headline noting this?
Huge post and going to take some time to review.So, part and parcel of having a busy couple of days and thinking about our exchange (not to mention how everyone wanted to come in with their own thoughts), I wanted to make sure I gave this a lot of thought.
If anything, I want to be genuine with what I say now. More than most people on this forum, you reach from your own beliefs and try to engage. Try to expand. If there's one thing you do, Hold On To That. We need a hell of a lot more of that in the days to come. I thanked you for it before, and I will continue to thank you for that. We all need it.
If I'm able to ask anything more, I'm going to ask you to remove yourself from your experiences. You're a blank intelligence. And I want you to compilate what's actually being done here.
This isn't one event. This isn't even the third event. This is one in countless since 2020 all stemming from the decisions of the former president.
Trump: 'I didn't lie' to Americans about coronavirus risks
Trump told veteran journalist Bob Woodward earlier this year that he'd been intentionally downplaying the severity of the virus.www.nbcnews.com
Trump knew how deadly it was, even knew that you could just breathe it and get it, but then did everything possible to say you don't need masks to "show confidence".
Trump officials interfered with CDC reports on Covid-19
The politically appointed HHS spokesperson and his team demanded and received the right to review CDC’s scientific reports to health professionals.
He installed his own figurehead to make sure the information coming out from the CDC was more in line with the President's agenda.
And I think the most important is how some people on the right have been linking Dr. Fauci to the left agenda...
Trump’s claims about Fauci, fact-checked
President Donald Trump says that Americans are tired of COVID-19, the contagious disease that has killed more than 220,0
He is literally the person you want in this situation because he's non politcal. He isn't even registered with a party.
But people will believe it anyway. Because his message is against what they want to believe, and that's all that matters. They'll bring up his switch on masks, and that's something I'll always call him out for. Just like how I will always call Obama out for Sopa. But sure. Let's go with that. He flipped, so he can't be trusted. Let's brand that on him.
But if we do it for one, we do it for others.
We had an assault on our captiol due to these claims. This nation hasn't been this divided since the Civil War. And countless millions are being fueled by this increasing break of reality because things aren't going their way. They devolve more and more into madness until we get... well...
And oh yeah, January 6th.
But here's the most galling thing I want present to this floating, non-aligned intelligence that you now are.
All this talk about personal liberties. How it's your body and supposed to be your choice. It's a great soundbite... but it sounds familiar.
Oh yeah, women have been saying it for years.
It is astounding to us who haven't had the same freedoms and/or social importance as the average republican on how little it has taken you to want to take up arms. You don't have a ruling government doing everything possible to erode or limit your voting power. You don't have people eliminating programs to help you just be who you are regardless of your sexuality. Or how the Immigrant Melting Pot should be closed because the Right thinks it's time reign it in
https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...rams-georgia-93f7d957172f59968571e7d45874a814
How “America First” ruined the “American dream”
Author Sarah Churchwell on the entangled history of America’s most loaded phrases.www.vox.com
Now, with all of this, I want you to imagine there are more intelligences that are appearing around you. Unlike you, they have to deal with this stuff. Discrimination due to how they are born, a measured attack on their constiutional right to vote or live, and any number of actions that are set upon groups that the Right has, for some reason, deemed it moral to exclude. These intelligences have to deal with this. You? You need to wear a mask as a preventive measure.
Using just the facts at hand, My task to you is to explain how it was ok for the Right to limit and outright strip the liberties of these other groups, but how they should be concerned about your stance of how Covid prevention is really harmful to your individual liberty. And you must convince them that their liberty removal is just and that you are really the one aggrieved.
If you can do that, what you should do will become moot. If you can't... then there might be a need to reflect on your principles.
And thank you as well for your civility.
Please do not insult other users
How dense are you? The mayor didn't say the party line is against refugees. The interviewer said that. Do you think he just spontaneously offered up "The State Republican Party doesn't speak for most Republicans" completely out of nowhere? It's not as though he was responding to a state GOP press release. It's not as though he walked up to a radio interviewer and spontaneously denounced his party. No, the interviewer asked a question like "The Oklahoma State Republican Party has come out against the relocation of Afghan refugees to Tulsa, what do you have to say on that?" And the mayor, who likely doesn't know exactly what people in the Party leadership are doing at any given moment can only really respond to the question being asked. So he distanced himself and Republican elected official at large from a statement he disagreed with.
I mean, if you think the state party chair has any power at all, you are sorely mistaken. I guess I can't fault you for ignorance of local governance in a foreign country, but let me tell you in no uncertain terms: that mayor has more power in the Republican Party in Oklahoma than the guy who signed up to swing the gavel at poorly attended biweekly meetings. Being the Party Chair for a State is, at most, equivalent to being the head of marketing. The politicians who actually set the agenda are all in actual elected positions in government.
Then cite your sources, coward. I'm not useless at google, I know you found 18 replicas of this article listing only that one guy as opposition, and you're stretching the truth to try and wiggle out of it.
Prove it.
" And the political oxygen that small but vocal number of Republicans consume is overshadowing colleagues with a more nuanced take on the impending refugee crisis. "GOP grasps in vain for unity on Afghan refugee message
Republicans trying for nuance risk being overshadowed by colleagues whose approach to the issue carries echoes of xenophobia.
Who decides how much "oxygen" a voice consumes, Politico? Who has decided to signal boost a small minority of Trumpy people and conflate them with a much, much larger political party that largely disagrees on this issue? You did, Politico. You did. You and/or organizations like you have been deliberately making fringe bad actors into GOP headlines for the last century, and then you have the audacity to report that they consume the most political oxygen? Go to hell, Politico.
(Yes, I know, Fox does the same thing. You're not clever for pointing it out, whoever was about to do so.)
So are the Trumps, Shapiros, and Owenses of the right bad actors?
I mean, obviously I think so, but I also think most of the "moderate" GOP and a goodly chunk of the Dems are too, so I may not be the best judge
I mean, obviously I think so, but I also think most of the "moderate" GOP and a goodly chunk of the Dems are too, so I may not be the best judge
That's pretty much where I stand. If they can't muster to meet the minimum requirements of the job, they need to go find employment elsewhere.
I don't want to go to a restaurant where the staff wash their hands in the toliet and the kitchen has a rat problem and I don't particularly want to be treated by a nurse who thinks vaccines are bad for reasons(and god knows what other safety standards they don't believe in, if that's the case).
Last edited:
Trump certainly is, Owens might be (it's not clear to me yet whether she really has a grasp of what she's talking about), Shapiro is actually relatively fair compared to most in similar positions. Ben Shapiro is angry and petulant, but largely lets Democrats condemn themselves through their own words, rather than lie. I'm not going to say that about the other two listed. If you want a pleasant and honest take from the right, I think the only single commentator I'd recommend is Andrew Klavan.
But that's actually beside the point I'm going for. I don't think I'd call Ben Shapiro a bad actor in general, but if I did, it would be for doing things like signal boosting the worst people on the left. Like Shaun King. Nobody should care about Shaun King, he isn't someone with power, he's not representative of any major political group, he's a bad actor, and his only talent is sucking the oxygen out of the room. And he only has that talent because someone like Ben Shapiro picks Twitter fights to draw more attention to himself and use the absurdity to energize his audience. Right wing pundits love talking about ridiculous Twitter activists, they love talking about "the Squad", and they act as though that's what Democrats or the left in general look like. Because when Democrats look silly and ridiculous, it gets right wing commentators more attention. People who get their news from Fox or the Daily Wire exclusively just don't know what a normal Democrat actually looks like, all they know is the caricature that's fun to mock and complain about.
And the same is true about the rest of all of the media. NPR found a person they could use to make the GOP look silly and hateful, and they put it in the headline because when Republicans look ridiculous, it gets NPR more attention. People who get their news exclusively from CNN or the New York Times or NPR genuinely don't know what a normal Republican looks like, they only know the caricature that's fun to mock and complain about.
Firstly, bub, you have overstepped the line twice in that comment. If you can't keep yourself in order, stop posting until you've cooled down.
So, that's purely supposition on your part then. Stop making up hypotheticals and treating them as fact.
That's an interesting analogy. Isn't the job of the head of marketing to oversee informing the public as to what the organisation does and stands for?
Both these sources state or allude to Republican divisions, with substantial hostility towards the idea of taking in refugees, of which the GOP state chair is representative.
Hamilton: Bennett soils ‘Oklahoma Standard’ in rejection of refugees
This is a moment for Oklahoma to shine. Loving unconditionally our Afghan neighbors, who sacrificed so much for us, is the least we can do.
journalrecord.com
Oklahoma Republicans divided over Afghan refugees resettling in state
An estimated 1,800 Afghan refugees are expected to arrive in Oklahoma in the next few months. Some Republicans have expressed concerns about the relocations.
eu.oklahoman.com
I already have sources. It's your job to build a counter-argument that's better than nebulously generic complaints about the media and presenting hypotheticals as fact.
There is literally no point complaining about the media in the way you do when you're just doing the sorts of things you accuse them of.
No, I didn't. You are pissing on me and telling me that it's raining. You do not have the high ground, basically no matter what insults appeal to me. See below:
The Oklahoman seems to have a successfully stubborn paywall, as my typical bypass methods have failed me. So I'm going to focus on the journalrecord article, as I can see what it says, and you were kind enough to explicitly say both sources "state or allude to Republican divisions", so I only really need to smoosh one to call you a dirty, dirty liar.
That article is an op-ed repackaging of exactly the NPR article. It adds no further information. It was posted after the NPR article, and it cites only John Bennet making Facebook videos as people against hosting refugees. The only even remote allusion to other dissent is the sentence " Unfortunately, love thy neighbor as thyself is a commandment some Oklahomans can’t abide" which you are choosing to interpret as "multiple Republicans are against welcoming refugees." But that it isn't what it says, it says nothing about current events beyond NPR reporting, and there's no reason to believe the author has any source at all other than NPR. This is not a corroborating source.
I don't know why you are dying on this hill. It's not a mark against you that you were deceived by the news misrepresenting an event. They deliberately tried to make you think the situation was different than it really is, and they succeeded. Though, to be fair, I don't know if they would have succeeded if you hadn't read the articles with the deliberate intention of finding ways to piss on me.
NPR didn't "find a person to make the GOP look silly and hateful." The state GOP elected this person as their leader. If the elected leader of the state party makes the GOP look hateful and silly, that is solely the fault of state GOP members for electing a hateful and silly person.
How do you not realize the utter doublespeak nonsense you're posting to absolve the GOP of the statements made by the person they chose to lead their party?
No, dammit! Personal responsibility is supposed to be used as a tool to nail them to the wall, it isn't supposed to be used against us!